and anyways, that area is ihabited by tibetians, which is considered chinese

Is that the only basis that China has for claiming Arunachal Pradesh?

AP are not Tibetans, but are indigenous tribespeople like the Monpa, Nishi, Sulung, etc. that are also found in neighboring states and Sikkim and Bhutan.

But even if they were Tibetans, that doesn't make the territory Chinese, even if we accept ipso facto that Tibetans are an official Chinese minority. Over 1/3 of (Indian administered) Kashmir are Tibet ethnicity, and derivations of the same are found in all hill peoples of India.

What people don't realize that even in British India and independant Tibet -- not even ancient times -- there was no 'boundary' between India and Tibet. There were no borders, toll booths, border guards or gates. India melted into Tibet and vice versa. If ethnicity is a factor of nationhood, then India has more of a right than China to speak on behalf of the Tibetans.

Most parts of southern Tibet have until the invasion, never in history have even seen a representative of a Chinese empire, and yet places like Kailash, Manosarovar, etc. are places of pilgrimage for Hindus and Buddhists since time immemorial; in importance to them as Mecca is for Moslems. The places there have Sanskrit names, plains-Indian descended priests and monks, and Hindu and Buddhist temples in Indian architectural styles. There is even a Sikh temple in Tibet, established nearby. Nearly a thousand of Indian regularly made the trecherous trek through the mountains to these places -- and Tibetans making the opposite trek to Buddhist pilgramage places like Bodhgaya or Sarnath in India -- each year... until the Chinese invasion where now they are cut off. The PRC allows only 40 or so Indians to make this pilgramage. Here's a map that shows some pilgramage points:

All that aside, there is the whole issue that India has nearly as many ethnic Tibetans as China!

Incidently Tibetans are very well represented in the Indian Army. I created a photo thread informing about their contributions in another forum (that doesn't mind large imbeded picture links ). Feel free to check outIndia's Tibetan Troops: Histories & Rare Photographs

Cheers,
Raj

April 20th, 2005

rajkhalsa

Quote:

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

If the real intention of the People's Republic of China is to contain India, hold them south of the Himalaya's, keep them at war with Pakistan and keep them as uninvolved in most of Southeast Asia as possible ... well, then their complaints against the United States for picking on them in similar (though less blatant) ways is incredibly hypocritical.

Well, I have nothing against the Chinese or their government, personally (except for the Tibet issue) -- they are doing exactly as a nation should do: proactively protect their interests.

What really pisses me off is that even after 50+ years and 5+ wars the Indian Government is living in some Gandhist la la land where every nation is a brother and the nation should turn the other cheek to attacks and plots against it. Just yesterday, Bangladeshi border guards shot dead an Indian border patrol man for no apparent reason, for the 50th time it seems in the last couple years... and India will refrain from beating the shit out of Bangla like every nation worth its salt should do (ref: every single major world power in every single similar incident) because India's politicos feel that it would "look bad" for India to push around a little guy.

Well such is geopolitics! Big guys push around little guys, or in China's case, push around other big guys who respond with a Nehruvian salute or a political hunger strike instead of pushing back.

Slowly as the older (Gandhi-influenced) generation dies out, India will be much more proactive in its foreign policy.

April 21st, 2005

MadeInChina

Quote:

Most parts of southern Tibet have until the invasion, never in history have even seen a representative of a Chinese empire, and yet places like Kailash, Manosarovar, etc. are places of pilgrimage for Hindus and Buddhists since time immemorial

first of all, china used to be buddist, are you goign to claim china because we believed in an orginal east indian religion?

Never in history have even seen a representative of a chinese empire??

during tang dynasty, tibet was considered a good friend to have and there was mutual relationship between tang and tibet, even a royal marriage occured.

yuan dynasty, the mongols had esdablished a khante region governed by one of Kubilai Khan's brothers, the region had several representative of mongol tribes going into tibet to meet and discuss

ming dynasty, some trade, affraid i havent hard much about tibet during this time period, if anyone cna find it then it would be great

qing dynasty, tibet was considered a vassal state by manchu, there was plenty of diplomacy to last a long time, trade occured and several royal marriages took place

ever since there was a dala lama, every dalalama that has been chosen meets with chinese government

--

April 21st, 2005

godofthunder9010

I believe the point that he was trying to make was that the average citizen of Tibet was far more likely to have dealings with India than with China. Tibet have had a love/hate relationship with China going way back. The Tang had substantial dealings with Tibet, sure. They also seized a large portion of the Kingdom of Tibet in retaliation for ... I can't remember what.

The Yuan Dynasty is a pretty lousy basis for making any point at all. Their greater empire controlled the Middle East and all of modern day Russia, yet these are not claimed by China. China wouldn't dare. That's because the Mongol Empire was not a Chinese Empire. What they did or did not do outside of China (during their control over China) has nothing to do with China. Just because France today was once controlled by Rome does not establish any basis for France to lay claim to Egypt, just because the Roman Empire controlled it. Control over or dialogue with Tibet by the Mongols cannot truly be used by China, saying that it was them. It wasn't.

When virtually the exacty thing happened: A semi-barbaric group invaded, conquered and controlled China -- the Manchus, the same would seem to carry over. What they did or didn't do can't be claimed as being actions of China itself. The difference occurred simply because the Qing (Manchu) Dyansty did not collapse quickly like the Yuan (Mongol) Dynasty. Maybe you have a basis for redefining "what is Chinese?" Then again, maybe you don't. Who decides what rules this is going to be based on?? As mentioned before, I can use the Yuan to claim China's "absolute right" to control the Middle East and Russia if I want. That doesn't mean that anyone else is going to take me seriously, and it most certainly does not give China the right to to conquer those lands.

The PRC was militarily strong and forcibly conquered much territory. Does that make the conquered ethnic groups Chinese? I suppose that it does. It does not, however, make them ethnic Chinese. I will say this: Having to keep track of 56+ ethnic groups is tedious. People aren't going to bother. They'll just call them Chinese because they live in China, and call it good. But ethnicity doesn't magically change the moment that you are conquered and held. There isn't a specific amount of time of control that people within a given region magically alter they ethnicity.

I think that the lazy approach to it is perhaps the least problematic: If I live in the USA and I am a citizen, I'm an American. If I live in China and am a citizen, I'm Chinese. Going farther than this always seems to make a mess of things.

April 22nd, 2005

MadeInChina

Quote:

That's because the Mongol Empire was not a Chinese Empire

its the yuan empire

lol, ok, here, i'll explain why so many semi-babaric FIRSt empires because CHinese later

basically the mongols, kublkai ghan ( sry for my spelling) and later mongol leaders, have followed the pattern of absorption into the chinese empire, since being in the chinese civilization had softened many and these mongols have often adopted chinese ways ( not saying its superior but its more enticing)

ever since teh mongols became more chinese and then are considered chinese, the yuan empire esdablished its capital in beijing, had its official language in chinese.

same with the manchu, at first they were fierce warriors, then they became absorbed into the chinese civilization, made their capital in china, spoke chinese, wrote chinese, used chinese culture and eventually they became chinese

all throughout history areas severely influenced by chinese culture is called chinese, even tibet if you dont believe it

April 22nd, 2005

godofthunder9010

When Marco Polo came to China, it was during the Yuan Dynasty. He concluded the Kublai Khan was Chinese for all intents and purposes. Why? Because he ruled from a capital located within China and had adopted the role of the Emperor of China, and all that it entailed.

Did that make him "Chinese" in the eyes of the Han Chinese he ruled over? Absolutely not! The secret of the Ming's rise to power was centered upon, "Throwing those filthy, nasty, disgusting and above all else non-Chinese barbarians out of China." While they did succeed in removing the Yuan Dynasty from power, many ethnic Mongols remained. Many also left. They were still regarding with disgust and loathing by the Han Chinese, no matter which side of the Great Wall the lived.

Interaction between the Ming and the colonial powers was quite limited, but there certainly was some contact. This was the late Ming, and therefore extremely isolationist.

The Manchu (Qing) Dynasty took over, adding what the Ming had controlled to their growing empire. The Qing would be more similar to the Roman Empire than any other Dynasty: A warlike group, bent on conquest who succeeded in dominating many diverse lands. Just like Rome, they intentionally stopped once they felt they controlled as much as they could hold (hence, not making the same mistake as the Mongols.) Tibet was one of those conquered, though they were never considered anything more than a vassal kingdom by the Qing. Modern day Mongolia, and Taiwan were also taken over and held. It was this Empire that came into much more direct contact and interaction with the colonial powers of Europe, especially in the 1800's.

So did the Europeans call all of the Manchu Empire "China" and "Chinese"? Sure, why wouldn't they? Its a simpler method of referring to the people and lands of the Manchus' Empire. They also wouldn't have known any better, in all truth. And how much contact did they have with the diverse lands controlled by the Qing Dynasty? Pretty limitted in all truth. The British had some limitted contact with Tibet via India, but for the most part, all dealings with Qing controlled China was through the coast. If the Qing drew a line on a map that included Taiwan, Mongolia and Tibet, and called it China ... well, so be it. So if Europeans accept this by default simply because they were almost entirely ignorant of Southeast Asia's history, does that validate the PRC's claims to such lands? I don't think that recognition based upon 1.) ignorance and 2.) just plain not caring about the mattter, qualify as proof that Tibetans and Mongolians are ethnic Chinese.

So who decides what "Ethnic Chinese"? The people of China have decided that they get to write their own rules for this one. "56 ethnic groups within China, but all of them are Chinese." That is valid only insofar as the established government does indeed control the borders containing them. But if I find a village on the shores of Lake Baikal that is 100% ethnic Mongolian, does that make them Chinese? What if that group decides that they are Mongolian-Russians and not Chinese? Does that merit a public outrage and demands for immediate invasion of Russia and seizure of all regions dominated by ethnic Mongols, just because China has decided to define Mongol=Chinese??

April 22nd, 2005

SwordFish_13

Topic: Arunachal Pradesh angry over PM's silence on Chinese claims

ITANAGAR: Politicians from Arunachal Pradesh are lobbying in New Delhi to put pressure on Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to formally reject China's claims that the northeastern state was a disputed area.

China's envoy to New Delhi, Sun Yuxi, this month raked up a controversy saying Arunachal Pradesh was still "a disputed area" between India and China.

"We are surprised at our prime minister's silence on China's absurd claims," said Tapir Gao, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP in the Lok Sabha.

Gao said he wanted a clarification on India's stand on Arunachal Pradesh.

"It appears the Indian government is trying to barter Arunachal Pradesh with China in lieu of Sikkim," Gao said over telephone from New Delhi.

Gao and other politicians from Arunachal Pradesh are trying to drum up support to pressuris the prime minister into making a formal statement on the issue.

"We are in touch with senior BJP and Congress leaders, besides other opposition MPs to lobby in Parliament," Gao said.

In 2003, Beijing gave up its territorial claim over Sikkim but continues to maintain that a vast stretch of Arunachal Pradesh belongs to it. Arunachal Pradesh shares a 1,030-km unfenced border with China.

The Sino-India border along Arunachal Pradesh is separated by the McMohan Line, which is now known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

India and China fought a border war in 1962, with Chinese troops advancing deep into Arunachal Pradesh.

China has never recognized the 1914 boundary, known as the McMahon Line, and claims 90,000 sq km - nearly all of Arunachal Pradesh. India also accuses China of occupying 8,000 sq km in Jammu and Kashmir.

"India should not repeat the mistake once again by remaining silent on the Chinese claims," another politician said.

Several pressure groups, tribal students' organisations and the Congress-ruled state government have voiced their anger over the Chinese claims.

Peace
-=SF_13=-

April 23rd, 2005

rajkhalsa

In addition to godofthunder9010's great posts, if being invaded by an nation makes the invaders a historical part of invadee nation, then India has as much claim to Tibet as China for the same reasons alone -- not counting even historical/cultural links.

The Mongols came to India several times, Kushans, Sycthians, and not to mention the most famous, the Moguls. Their empires extended well into E. Turkestan (Xinjiang) as well as Tibet, Persia, etc. This is not counting various Indian empires invasions of Tibet, like the Sikhs, Mons, Gorkha, etc.

Using Chinese logic, India can very well claim Xingjiang, Tibet, because not only has invaders politically claimed parts of India (and hence vice versa thru that logic), but India has had overweening continual cultural and spiritual relations with these countries. India has a greater claim to Tibet, Xingjiang than China!

As for Tibetan's spiritual guidance to titular Chinese kings, dude, the various Sakhya and Red-Hat sects of Tibetan Buddhism are an offshoot of Indian Vajrayana Mahayana Buddhism expounded by sage Shakyamuni which came to Tibet from India. This came to Tibet from Indian sage Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche) who defeated Chinese Buddhist emmisaries in great debates and established Indian Tantric Buddhism as the most powerful religion in Tibet. Tibetans literally view India as their "spiritual mother" and religious contacts between various Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh leaders (titular and spiritual) lasted until the Chinese invasion and closed borders. (A famous Maharashtran from the early 1900s saint still has followers in Tibet, though most fled to India after invasion.) And this is not to mention the various Turkestani peoples, who are far more liberal Moslems than their neighbors, have their origins in the N. Indian Moslem peoples and traditions! Sadly, due to Pakistani interferance in Xingjiang, these people are rapidly becomng Deobandi and Wahabi.

Long story short, while Chinese kings looked to Tibetan Lamas in a form of guidance in the Cho-Yan (transliterilation of Sanskrit's Guru-Chela or "Teacher-Disciple"), Tibet in turn followed and to this day follows the same Guru Chela relationship with India. Further more, the Cho-Yan relationship where the Chinese emperor is a spiritual student of the Tibetan does not somehow translate, in any leap of logic, to Chinese politically lording over Tibet or its people... quite the opposite, and for the Chinese to claim this as reason for its 'historic' ownership of Tibet is the height of arrogance.

April 23rd, 2005

MadeInChina

lol, first of all previously the area around lake balkal, outher qingling ranges and north east were chinese territory

hey i dont get it, this is just sad, chinese empire was suppose to be alot bigger than today, including monogolia and parts of mancuria, yet you still cry about it, why??? probably because of ur fear of the rise of the dragon, otherwise you wounldnt be commenting on it

rajkhalsa, dont go and make such posts claiming tibet is also as much indian as chinese, ur previous posts makes me feel suspicious about ur sources. btw, the tibetian language is alot more similar to madrain than punjabi

April 23rd, 2005

rajkhalsa

Oh please.

Is there anything in any of my previous posts that is NOT 100% verifiable, un-exaggerated, fact?

As for sources? I can get plenty. What I have said is common knowlege. Is there any fact in particular you want me to reference?

PS: Resorting to unsubstantiated or hot-air rhetoric about "the rise of the dragon" (*waves hands*hooooooh) won't work here.